Society Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[segua]

Spoiler

Culture is an evolutionary strategy, and values must be judged by the consequences of the kind of behaviours they encourage.

It doesn't matter wether the belief is religious or secular, and indeed, students of the history of religion often speak of the religious nature of secular thought. Nor is there a difference between religious and secular thinking at the neurophysiological level. I posted this to someone elses blog a while ago but the blog owner didn't find it relevant enough to post. It contains some material that might be relevant here.

1.
I think its worth asking what religious and secular ethics even mean in the first place, when students of religion cannot even define the religious and the secular as different categories that can be usefully applied across all cultures. (In a similar way, students of comparative philosophy have similar hermaneutic problems when they try to apply labels of culture-specific origin such as epistemology to other societies.) Secondly there exists the bigger problem that students of comparative religion such as Mircea Eliade have demonstrated the presence of mythological and 'religious' thinking within mainstream 'secular' thought such as Marxism, American patriotism and also Neitzsche's ideal of the Superman which has been interpreted as a justification of present action on its not-yet-present behalf. Indeed, it has also been said that all of modern secular politics represents socioeconomic messianism of some kind of another.

In keeping with the observations that there is no objective difference between the religious and the secular, is that there exist no specific parts of the brain that have an exclusively 'religious' or 'secular' functioning. Indeed, there is evidence that the differences in brain structure that separate liberals from conservatives in an American context are of more importance than those separating religious and secular thought, although Conservatives are more likely to be religious.

2.
As for the rationality of atheistic or secular morality, we should be careful to remember that moral values are not components of phenomena themselves, but are merely products of the observers own cognition and therefore exist only in perception. Moral judgments therefore constitute mistaken attempts to describe the nature of phenomena, and there can be no moral knowledge because the word 'knowledge' implies an understanding of the actual nature of phenomena, rather than unsubstantiated perceptions of them. But in spite of the irrefutable logic of error theory, most atheists and other self proclaimed 'rationalists' are not meta-ethical nihilists. It is like people will refute illogic they don't like and then keep clinging to the rest.

This observation actually relates to my first observation, because of course in Western bioethics there is an obsession with 'conciousness' and 'personhood' that can trace its origins to the Christian and especially Protestant ideal of the individual soul, so that the ideal of finding a point in human ontology when a fetus becomes a 'human being' based upon awareness is nothing more than a secular revaluation of the rationally refuted concept of quickening. Likewise most secularists are moral universalists, who support Enlightenment concepts such as human rights and merely disagree between themselves about the proper way to achieve a goal of universal suffrage, but this moral universalism is a part of their culture-specific Christian heritage.

3.
New Atheists like to claim that religion is a costly spandrel or a mind-virus (although they have to justify this position by resorting to selection bias). And politicised secularists actually make one-sided, moralistic arguments against the historical 'crimes' of religion so frequently, that their ridiculous claims that religion is purely costly and harmful (despite being so successful for centuries!) are obviously an example of the 'ought-is' or moralistic logical fallacy.

But it is through morals that religion (and other ideologies) control people. What if the capacity for moral judgement itself is a useless and costly spandrel? Many of the 'crimes' that were perpetrated by organised religions or that were justified using religious arguments, were ultimately in the genetic self-interest of the perpetrator.

We should remember that according to Satoshi Kanazawa, the secular left are more likely than the religious right to argue using the moralistic fallacy, as can be seen by their reliance upon accusations involving -isms and -phobias, as well as the leftist nature of the 'sociobiology wars' etc.

4.
We should also remember that to appeal to novelty is a logical fallacy, just as is appeal to tradition. And the widespread secular support for policies such as pro-choice and gay marriage is obviously based on the appeal of novelty, given how few of the average policy-supporters actually understand the issues in question. Far from being proof of secular rationality, the fact that certain political positions are so popular among secularists who haven't considered the issues actually confirms that the average secularist is a herd animal, who is either incapable of making his own decisions about social issues or is too spineless to go against the herd so he still follows it anyway, even if it takes him off the side of a cliff. In other words, secularists are vulnerable to the same forms of social control as the religious are.

Although secular ethics are almost always universalist, I notice that secular types prefer to ignore inconvenient universals, such as the universality of some kind of family values, that all cultures associate womanhood with childbirth and childrearing, or that heterosexual marriage is universal whilst homosexual marriage is not. Of course conservative ethics are frequently nonsensical, but so are moralistic, secular statements such as "marriage is about love, not the family!" and "women do not exist simply to have babies", once one takes into account the implications of sociobiology for humans, or of functionalism in anthropology.

Despite the efforts of secular humanists to dismiss matters of sex as socially irrelevant, the fact is that all cultures possess taboos and laws about sexual behaviour that universally support the heterosexual family. In ancient Greece homosexuality was widely practiced, tolerated and according to correct social context, encouraged. Yet these men were still expected to have heterosexual families, and homosexual marriage was unheard of. I shouldn't need to point out the biological explanation why heterosexuality alone was favoured in Greek marriage customs, or why some cultures have completely condemned and persecuted homosexuals with no ill-effect to the survival of the group at large, although no cultures have ever persecuted heterosexuals in the same way. Of course matters of sexual behaviour are not socially irrelevant, and anyone who thinks that they are, is extremely ignorant of anthropology.

Another logical fallacy is the 'fallacists fallacy', which is the fallacy by which things are considered to be irrational because they have been rationalised. But humans always rationalise things, and all that matters is the usefulness of the rationalisation in promoting behaviour. As cultural beliefs are subject to natural selection, it is not the rationalisation itself but its outcomes that must be judged as rational, and religious taboos and preferences that are widely practiced across cultures and over centuries are therefore tried and tested as practical. In contrast to this vast body of accumulated practical experience, much of secular ethics comes accross as children throwing toys out of their pram.

I guess I would summarize this in people identifying with certain beliefs due to appeal and/or heritage rather than trying to fully understanding the beliefs i.e. origins, development and etc. All this is interesting as it began to point out how people try to define themselves in this heap of mumbo-jumbo as I would call it. This struggling seems to be caused by the efforts of a person trying to define or figure out who he is? But even through this struggling, we can't agree that the resulting human product might be beneficial or harmful to society.

As far as culture is concern, I believe that a culture of a group of people didn't intend itself to be an evolutionary strategy but moreso the exhibited characteristics of a community as a whole. But, the importance of culture being strategic might come into play when there is an intentional goal such as world domination or survival. That is where self-identification at an individual level is crucial either to the success of a group of people or the demise of a group of people.

No, christianity is corrupt, I'll tell you why

Song of songs in the bible endorses incest acts which is totally immoral.

The bible gives people permission to kill non believers.

There is no way this corrupt book could be the product of where morals came from in the first place.

Some religions are totall nonesense and some of them don't give equal rights to humans.

There is one last religion which rules by the absolute morality and law, and its called islam.

Christians might be corrupt, but the Bible is not corrupt. You just don't understand it. And I find it strange that you should bash the Bible because I clearly recall the Quran/Mohammed stating that if a reader or believer (Moslem) does not understand, go back to the Scripture i.e. books of the Bible. Did not even Mohammed quote and reference to the Bible? I know he hated Jews and Christians for their hypocrisy, but Mohammed's take on the Books were different.

Perhaps you also misunderstand the Quran too when you wrote about absolute morality and law. Perhaps you misunderstood the value that is in other religions. There is a universal teaching which is the Golden rule: do unto others what you would want done unto you. That is the basis of the law and teachings of most religions. You see, there has always been problems with absolute morality and law. They aren't fulfilling, people run into the dangers of becoming a hypocrite and pride and lastly, they were always abused by people. Since you are a person of the Book also, learn from the Jews and even Christians: don't let being a follow of God go to your head.

The basis of the law and morality is love, and if you don't understand that, I'm afraid you missed it. It wasn't so much about the do's and don'ts. It was the application of the do's and don'ts in the context of love. If it's all about love, then it also should be about healthy and positive relationships. If it's about relationship, clearly God wants to establish a relationship with you. If you can't even get passed that, you missed the entire reason why God has been so merciful and is not God so very merciful?

 

[faintsmile1992]

As far as culture is concern, I believe that a culture of a group of people didn't intend itself to be an evolutionary strategy but moreso the exhibited characteristics of a community as a whole. But, the importance of culture being strategic might come into play when there is an intentional goal such as world domination or survival. That is where self-identification at an individual level is crucial either to the success of a group of people or the demise of a group of people.

Yes, Social Identity Theory has a biological basis.

And if culture is an innate human universal it won't be a planned strategy, however it functions to promote the survival of the culture-bearers. Culture can be understood in the value neutral terms as the rest of human (and animal) behaviour.

 

[DLord.Van.Buuren]

Yes, Social Identity Theory has a biological basis.

And if culture is an innate human universal it won't be a planned strategy, however it functions to promote the survival of the culture-bearers. Culture can be understood in the value neutral terms as the rest of human (and animal) behaviour.

Culture is too wide and broad a concept to be reduced into a paragraph of 3 lines. Moreover, you should be careful not to trespass into the realm of heresy and conjectures for I doubt that a 19 or a even a 21 YO youth is capable of discerning cultural phenomena; we lack the intellectual qualifications to be discussing this in the first place. In addition to this, saying that Social Identity Theory has a biological basis is sort of a reduction, knowing that there is a whole fucking discipline for examining the intricacy of biological factors with social phenomena(Sociobiology).

 

[faintsmile1992]

Culture is too wide and broad a concept to be reduced into a paragraph of 3 lines.

Its possible to define culture in a few lines, though I wasn't attempting to.

cul·ture (klchr)
n.
1.
a. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
b. These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
c. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
d. The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.

The first two definitions of culture can be studied as aspects of the fourth, which can be understood (as all animal behaviour can) in Darwinian terms, and its study can be compartmentalized according to the third definition.

Moreover, you should be careful not to trespass into the realm of heresy and conjectures for I doubt that a 19 or a even a 21 YO youth is capable of discerning cultural phenomena; we lack the intellectual qualifications to be discussing this in the first place.

What've I said that's heresies and conjectures?

In addition to this, saying that Social Identity Theory has a biological basis is sort of a reduction, knowing that there is a whole fucking discipline for examining the intricacy of biological factors with social phenomena(Sociobiology).

There's nothing wrong with reductionism, and there's a lot of evidence that SIT is accurate. If it is, then it has a neurological basis to it.

 

[Kaiten]

Discuss this quote which demonstrates the nature of belief (here labelled as 'religion' because hesterton's Christian religion demands faith) as opposed to the nature of superstition, and reflects that religion can't be reduced to any one psychological impulse.

"Sane peasants, healthy hunters, are all superstitious; they are superstitious because they are healthy and sane. They have a reasonable fear of the unknown; for superstition is only the creative side of agnosticism. The superstitious man sees quite plainly that the universe is a thing to be feared. The religious man maintains paradoxically that the universe is a thing to be trusted." - GK Chesterton

---------- Post added at 07:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 AM ----------



Respect and tolerance ought *not* to be unconditional, because the personal conscience is just something that people make up as they go along, not something that ought to be treated as sacrosanct.

Ultimately the people proclaiming ideologies that they claim are based upon respect and tolerance towards others as equals, are in reality motivated by feelings of resentment and by the self-interested Will to Power, just like everyone else.

Secular humanism is just the sklavenmoral aspect of Christianity with a new, superficially rational mask, and is yet deeply irrational.

Complete and utter bullshit. Respect and tolerance are unconditional for the simple reason that most of us don't give a flying fuck what other people do in private, so long as no one is hurt and new diseases are not introduced to the human species (I draw the line at fucking animals and corpses). Want to worship a different god than me? I don't give a fuck, that's your business, not mine. Want to fuck a member of the same gender? I don't give a fuck, that's your business, not mine. Speak a different language than me? I don't give a fuck, can't help where you were born. Want to vote for a different political party? I don't give a fuck, your opinion, not mine. So get the fuck out with that resentment and will to power bullshit. In reality tolerance is driven by minding your own fucking business.

That Chesterton quote is a steaming pile of horseshit too. Superstition and religion are not even roughly analogous. They do not even fulfill the same mental role. At the risk of sounding agnostic, religion centers around belief that there is a higher purpose to the world indiscernible to the human mind and beyond day to day experience. It is an attempt to grapple with the many unknowns unknown. Faith is the operative quality a religion asks of it's followers. And faith is a truly beautiful quality to have as daily life demands faith, even if we do not know it. In most sense religion and science are analogous as each is an attempt to explain the world. And those who believe that science does not demand faith surely have not studied astrophysics. To compare a subject as complex and thought provoking as religion to something as mundane as not spilling salt or walking under a ladder is ridiculous. And ignorant. Whether one believes or not, religion is an incredibly intellectual pursuit. Religious study, including revisionist religion (a fascinating subject) makes for excellent mental exercise. I recommend everyone read the Tao Te Ching and really spend some time trying to decipher it. A single sentence contains more wisdom than a library filled with Chesterton quotes.

 

[faintsmile1992]

Complete and utter bullshit. Respect and tolerance are unconditional for the simple reason that most of us don't give a flying fuck what other people do in private, so long as no one is hurt and new diseases are not introduced to the human species (I draw the line at fucking animals and corpses).

Its not unconditional if you draw the line then is it? You'd still like a line drawn somewhere even if zoophiles and necrophiles loose out. If you can be against such peoples private sex, then I can be against gay sex, etc. Beyond concerns about diseases (but they can just use a condom), its all a value judgement that would displeases others if its put into practice, and tolerance would simply hold back the judging person from acting morally.

Want to worship a different god than me? I don't give a fuck, that's your business, not mine. Want to fuck a member of the same gender? I don't give a fuck, that's your business, not mine. Speak a different language than me? I don't give a fuck, can't help where you were born. Want to vote for a different political party? I don't give a fuck, your opinion, not mine. So get the fuck out with that resentment and will to power bullshit. In reality tolerance is driven by minding your own fucking business.

And why is that good in itself? In theological terms its the sin of sloth, in Nietzschean terms its nihilism.

That Chesterton quote is a steaming pile of horseshit too. Superstition and religion are not even roughly analogous. They do not even fulfill the same mental role.

Try reading the quote again, he's arguing that religion isn't the same thing as superstition.

And faith is a truly beautiful quality to have as daily life demands faith, even if we do not know it.

How exactly does daily life demand faith?

 

[M3J]

The problem with this world, and religion, isn't that people think they're right, but idiots think they're right. With idiots, they'll attack your ideas and even you personally and claim their way is right and in most cases end up contradicting themselves.

The major argument I see for Big Bang is this: it couldn't have just happened, something had to have created it. But then, what about god? I don't care how omniscient he is, he must have been created out of something if Big Bang needed to happen out of something. You cannot debunk Big Bang without debunking god because both cannot be explained as to how they came about without sounding illogical.

One thing that kind of scares me is that religious people say they need faith to live and ask people like me how we can live when we don't believe in god. I don't need to be loved by a higherup who'll send me to hell for not blowing him, all I want to do is live my own way. I don't need someone else to tell me my purpose in life. Our purpose is as we make it, not what we think god makes it.

Problem with tolerance is that people want others to see things their way. People want to think they're right, so they tend not to mind their own business and bully others into agreeing with them. As Kaiten so eloquently said, we can have tolerance if people mind their own "fucking" business, which majority won't do. Go up to a random stranger, ask him his religion, and then say you're an atheist if he's a theist. Chances are he'll say "why? god exists!" and might try to convince you to become religious or believe in god. Though, people sometimes might not mind their own business because they're truly curious as to how someone can live the way they do.

 

[faintsmile1992]

As a framework (not moral absolutes), religion is good for the individual and for the group, because it provides people with positive values and creates harmony by standards to live by. When people use faith as a crutch, however, its a sign of weakness. The benefits of religion are nothing to do with whether God exists, but the human behaviours it encourages.

 

[blai]

Difference between religion and faith is immense. I have faith but I don't belong to a religious group as religion in my opinion restricts ones opinion in a field where imagination and belief is the foundation for ones faith.

 

[M3J]

As a framework (not moral absolutes), religion is good for the individual and for the group, because it provides people with positive values and creates harmony by standards to live by. When people use faith as a crutch, however, its a sign of weakness. The benefits of religion are nothing to do with whether God exists, but the human behaviours it encourages.

Religion is only good as the person who practices it. Religions won't give people positive values if they don't want to practice any, and in some religions, there isn't always harmony. Like in Islam, there's honor killing. I dunno much, but I know that many women who "dishonor" their family get killed. I think in Hinduism, it supports widows lighting themselves on fire at their husband's funeral. There may be benefits to religion, but it's lost now because of god. People want to fight over god, for god, so it doesn't really encourage the best behavior. Some people will attack and murder others for their religious differences while others will resort to terrorism or terrorize on a personal level.

Besides, isn't it culture that influences the human behavior? Though nowadays, it is hard to separate both as culture tends to be centered around religion.

 

[faintsmile1992]

Religion is only good as the person who practices it. Religions won't give people positive values if they don't want to practice any, and in some religions, there isn't always harmony. Like in Islam, there's honor killing. I dunno much, but I know that many women who "dishonor" their family get killed. I think in Hinduism, it supports widows lighting themselves on fire at their husband's funeral. There may be benefits to religion, but it's lost now because of god. People want to fight over god, for god, so it doesn't really encourage the best behavior. Some people will attack and murder others for their religious differences while others will resort to terrorism or terrorize on a personal level.

Well those are your own (or your culture's) value judgements upon some religious people, its not what I meant by positive values.

The most relevant definitions of positivity (as opposed to 'tolerance'/sloth/nihilism) here might be the following.

Characterized by or displaying certainty, acceptance, or affirmation.
Explicitly or openly expressed or laid down.
Very sure; confident.
Concerned with practical rather than theoretical matters.
Of or relating to laws imposed by human authority rather than by nature or reason alone

People don't agree on one set of positive values but people can't achieve anything without asserting them over the interests of others where its necessary to do so.

Besides, isn't it culture that influences the human behavior? Though nowadays, it is hard to separate both as culture tends to be centered around religion.

Well religious beliefs and practices are aspects of culture lol. There isn't even a meaningful distinction between the 'religious' and the 'secular' cross-culturally.

 

[M3J]

From what I've seen from others, they're not pushing positive values on others but their religion and god and ideas, which aren't really correct. I don't see how converting or forcing people to convert to a religion is positive, especially when they aren't keen on it in the first place. They don't need to assert anything on others. Chances are, that'll piss the targets off and drive them away from the person or positive values.

Not really, religious stuff and culture can be different. For example, Mexicans' culture includes being family-centric and etc. However, their religion depends. If a family is Catholic, they will read the bible and go to church every Sunday. If another family is Buddhist, they will meditate a lot. Religion dictates some aspects of life, but it shouldn't be that much related to culture at all.

 

[Kaiten]

Only a small minority of religions engage in aggressive missionary work. Some groups do go to far and act to aggressively, but it is hardly fair to hold that against all religious communities. Forced conversion is illegal anyway. Some religions, Judaism for example, forbid missionary work. Converts are accepted but they must be voluntary.

 

[M3J]

I was thinking about over a century ago when Catholics (I think?) went to Native American lands and converted them to Catholicism. This is based on a history textbook in school, though, so I dunno how accurate it is.

A lot of religious communities try to push their ideas on you though. Go to Christianland and be all, I AM GOD-FEARING HOMOSEXUAL!!1 and people will say "but god doesn't accept homosexuality, it's a sin!" just because they don't like it. Some might even accuse the homosexual who believes in god of being atheist despite him going to church every Sunday and reading the bible.

Of course, I do have a jaded view on religions, especially since I read a lot about honor killings that Muslims tend to support. Not all, but still. Many religious people seem hypocritical to me.

 

[shaheer]

Of course, I do have a jaded view on religions, especially since I read a lot about honor killings that Muslims tend to support. Not all, but still. Many religious people seem hypocritical to me.

honor killing is a biblical concept not found in Quran, if any muslim is doing it its his lack on knowledge not the fault of Islam(like some muslims support suicide bombing).
To be honest i never knew what is honor killing before i entered facebook, nd all of a sudden ppl started saying muslims endows this. I had many muslims who doesnt understand concept well asking me what does HONOR Killing mean.

When i explained to them they were like really? i vent seen this command in the Quran!!

 

[blai]

Honor killings is in no way mentioned in the Quran, however, in the Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and Al Bukhari there are examples of people who have done wrong and has such, for example, casted shame or committed wrong-doings sexually (adultery or other illegal sexual intercourses).

Two Examples;

Spoiler: Sahi Bukhari: 8:6814:

Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansari: “A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse; and he bore witness four times against himself. Allah’s Messenger ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married person.”

Spoiler: Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 196:

Narrated Abu Huraira: A man from Bani Aslam came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque and called (the Prophet ) saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." On that the Prophet turned his face from him to the other side, whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and repeated his statement. The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side again. The man moved again (and repeated his statement) for the fourth time. So when the man had given witness four times against himself, the Prophet called him and said, "Are you insane?" He replied, "No." The Prophet then said (to his companions), "Go and stone him to death." The man was a married one. Jabir bin 'Abdullah Al-Ansari said: I was one of those who stoned him. We stoned him at the Musalla ('Id praying place) in Medina. When the stones hit him with their sharp edges, he fled, but we caught him at Al-Harra and stoned him till he died.
(See also Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 195.)

I'm confident that a vast, vast majority of muslim believers do not act as the examples above but there's always a group of fundamentals that will, at least in the three monotheistic religions, not bow to use violence like that... No matter how absolutely ridiculous and useless it is to kill in the name of a religion.

---------- Post added at 11:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 AM ----------

I was thinking about over a century ago when Catholics (I think?) went to Native American lands and converted them to Catholicism. This is based on a history textbook in school, though, so I dunno how accurate it is.

Forced conversion has always been around, it's not like Constantine I convinced the Roman Empire that the ☧ (labarum) and a monotheistic belief (Christianity) was the most logical thing to do and just abolish their old polytheistic pagan believes. Just like Mieszko I of Poland converted to Christianity, Mark the Evangelist or Gustav Vasa broke with the vatican to start the reformation in Sweden. Not to mention the forced conversion of Egypt.

Religion has been used in all kinds of ways, it's not necessarily bad (even though there are tons of negative events / examples throughout history). Religion is used for good: to give people a sense of belonging, to aid people in need, to give comfort, to give strength and to support each other. I could honestly say though that I can find the belonging in other ways than through my personal belief and through my personal belief get strength, comfort and support but not everyone is like that.

In my opinion, religion with it's respective institutions is a way to a) differentiate people and b) control people.

Faith however is a much more powerful tool and even though my mother tried to doctrine me in the ways of the Catholic church I will never blindly believe something someone else tells me. If God is in every one of us and works through every one of us, then we all have our personal God and mine's not a beared man on a cloud, condemning us based on how we wish to live the lives he supposedly gave us... That would be like giving a kid a football and then starting to hit him when he wants to play basketball with it instead.

---------- Post added at 11:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 AM ----------

A lot of religious communities try to push their ideas on you though. Go to Christianland and be all, I AM GOD-FEARING HOMOSEXUAL!!1 and people will say "but god doesn't accept homosexuality, it's a sin!" just because they don't like it. Some might even accuse the homosexual who believes in god of being atheist despite him going to church every Sunday and reading the bible.

If God made man and gave him free will out of all creatures, why would he condemn our choices?

Pushing ideas upon others has always been the way of western religions. It's a "Believe or thou shall perish" mentality that has been around for thousands of years but doesn't really fit with today's modern, secular global society. Religion with it's institutions is a thing of the past whereas faith is something timeless that will always be playing an essential part in all of our lives - whether it's something we welcome or not.

Many religious people seem hypocritical to me.

Religion in itself is hypocritical as it asks you to believe something you don't know of but not to allow even the slightest open mind towards other things you don't know of. It tells you to love all while condemn some, tells that men can't sin as they're children of God while saying all of us sin etc.

 

[shaheer]

Honor killings is in no way mentioned in the Quran, however, in the Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and Al Bukhari there are examples of people who have done wrong and has such, for example, casted shame or committed wrong-doings sexually (adultery or other illegal sexual intercourses).

Thats called Hudud which is the capital punishment in Islamic sharia adultery is a heavily punishable crime in Islamic jurisprudence. The execution/ any sort of punishment is carried out publicly.
if i am mistaken and i might be honor killing refers to homicide of a member of a family or social group by other members, due to the belief of the perpetrators that the victim has brought dishonor upon the family or community. (copied)
as such i dont see how the hadith are relevant its talking about the punishment of a crimes(in islamic sharia it is). If that is included as honor killing then i suppose death penalty for killing some one is also honor killing.
but if you are saying that our part of the world think that these are honor killing then you are comparing 2 different ethos and its values and its sense of justice.

Though i am having hard time figuring out how an ex christian knows the hadith that are only find in the hate sites and are mostly taken out of the context and pictures i suppose you did quote the hadith but i need to check the isnad and the fukas explanation to get it for certain. I just gave the general view which is adultry for married person is a capital crime in Islam.

 

[DLord.Van.Buuren]

Religion is only good as the person who practices it. Religions won't give people positive values if they don't want to practice any, and in some religions, there isn't always harmony. Like in Islam, there's honor killing. I dunno much, but I know that many women who "dishonor" their family get killed. I think in Hinduism, it supports widows lighting themselves on fire at their husband's funeral. There may be benefits to religion, but it's lost now because of god. People want to fight over god, for god, so it doesn't really encourage the best behavior. Some people will attack and murder others for their religious differences while others will resort to terrorism or terrorize on a personal level.

Besides, isn't it culture that influences the human behavior? Though nowadays, it is hard to separate both as culture tends to be centered around religion.

I find it unfortunate that religion has strayed from its original purpose: to give men the experience of the awe and the sense of humility towards the ultimate mystery. Religion was meant to help people answer questions; it's an explanation, a concept( we're not arguing the truth or falsity of a religion since they all serve the same purpose). The assumption that a certain religion(an ideology) is To blame kind of contradicts how a progressive mind should think. Instead, we should examine the reason why a given ideology is presented this way: Man.

 

[blai]

Though i am having hard time figuring out how an ex christian knows the hadith that are only find in the hate sites and are mostly taken out of the context and pictures i suppose you did quote the hadith but i need to check the isnad and the fukas explanation to get it for certain. I just gave the general view which is adultry for married person is a capital crime in Islam.

As I have yet to renounce my membership of my Church I am not officially an ex christian, I just don't want to be affiliated with a religious institution that restricts my beliefs and tells me how to live my life as it's ridiculously irrational (in my opinion).
I did not find these at some kind of Islamic hate site, I don't dislike Islam more than I dislike any other religion in which people have throughout time killed in it's named (with approval from the religious elite).
Feel free to ask an isnad (or check online somewhere for an explanation), I'll be interested in hearing what they have to say so please share their response here!
My quotes was simply to emphasize that Islam is by no means an "innocent" religion as Islam has as much blood to be accounted for as the other two Abrahamic religions.

 

[DLord.Van.Buuren]

Feel free to ask an isnad (or check online somewhere for an explanation), I'll be interested in hearing what they have to say so please share their response here!
My quotes was simply to emphasize that Islam is by no means an "innocent" religion as Islam has as much blood to be accounted for as the other two Abrahamic religions.

This is kind of weird for me. Islam - the idea( has no will of ts own) - is not innocent ? Wouldn't it be better to say that the people who held the idea are not innocent ? makes more sense this way, doesn't it ?